30. Militias are NOT a moot question.

Good Reason for it The universal right to bear arms predates the time when we had a large standing army. When the right to bear arms was written, raids by indians were a real possibility in nearly every state. (I think Delaware and Rhode Island were pretty much out of that, as well as New Jersey). I think the last Comanche attack on San Antonio was in the 1870s (made it as far as the corner of commerce and soledad. So explain, if militias are now a moot question, what excuse is there for universal gun ownership. Please don't say self protection. Self destruction is more likely.

Yes, militias were intended to be used for external threats to the people. They were also intended to be used for internal threats to the people, specifically the federal government. This is why a decentralized military force was adopted, rather than a centralized one under the control of the central government.

We may no longer be under threat from Native American attacks, but this does not mean that there is no longer a danger of attack from someone else, or oppression from within.

So militias are NOT a moot question. They simply no longer exist anymore. Which is no doubt why the founders did not enumerate the right to keep and bear arms to the militias or the states, but to the people.

Also, self-protection is a perfectly valid reason to own firearms, as is hunting.

The second amendment does not say that militia use is the ONLY reason for owning firearms, it only provides A reason for firearm ownership.

It is like saying, "I am out of bread, so I am going to the store." This does not imply that the only reason for going to the store is to buy bread, nor that bread is the only thing that stores sell.